Prof. Thapar and the Kluge Chair

Appointment of Professor Romila Thapar to the Kluge Chair at the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

An Open Letter of Protest

Date: 29 April 2003

To: Prosser Gifford, Director of Academic Programs, LOC.

Dear Dr. Gifford,

I am writing this open letter to protest the appointment of Dr. Romila Thapar to the Kluge Chair at the Library of Congress. At the very outset, I want to emphasize two things –

• First, my complaint should not be construed as an attack on academic freedom. On the contrary, as a member of an American minority community, my concern is about due process and that it give an equal voice to the minority community on par with other Americans. As you can judge from the tremendous response to an on-line petition, the community is voicing its distress and sadness at the appointment of Professor Thapar to the Kluge Chair.

• Second, I do not suspect the intentions or motivations of the committee that seeks to appoint Professor Thapar to the Kluge Chair. However, as an informed member of the Indian diaspora, I sincerely urge you to reconsider the appointment.

My objections have been organized as follows –

1. Prof. Thapar’s Lack of Required Skills
2. Her Political Affiliations with Indian Communists
3. Perceptions and Fears of the Indian American Community
4. The Objectives of the Kluge Chair Center and the Library Of Congress

I can provide you detailed documentary evidence for all my claims if you so desire. This is merely a brief letter.

A. Prof. THAPAR’s LACK OF REQUIRED SKILLS -

The appointment of an applicant to the Kluge requires that the person be familiar with the literary, epigraphic, linguistic and archaeological sources which provide the primary data for this research. Unfortunately, Prof. Thapar does not come equipped with those skills and knowledge.

1. Linguistic Skills: From her own public admissions, we know that Prof. Thapar is ignorant of classical languages of India – Pali/Prakrit, Tamil.[1] Her knowledge of Sanskrit, the lingua franca of literate communities in ancient India, is quite rudimentary. Of the four linguistic groups of India viz., Tibeto-Burman, Dravidian, Austro-Asiatic and Indo-Aryan,[2] she has little or no familiarity with the first three, and a fragmentary knowledge of the last. As a result, she is unable to do any reasonable linguistic analysis in her writings.

The Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), with which she has been affiliated with for most of her career, had actually scuttled efforts to teach the classical languages of India within their premises, on the grounds that teaching Sanskrit will promote Hindu revivalism! Her own aversion towards Sanskrit is well known and documented.

Next to English, considerable core/fundamental research on ancient India has been written and published in German, citations of which are largely conspicuous by their absence in her writings.[3]

It may be noted that Prof. Thapar has not translated even one published ancient Indian text ab initio, she has merely ‘translated’ some passages from texts such as Bhagavata Purana,[4] which already have dozens of existing translations.

2. InsufficientKnowledge ofLiterary Records: Several major Indian texts from the ancient period still lie untranslated, and most existing translations were done as much as a century ago. Much philological data has emerged in the last century, and fresh translations are needed to provide students with a more modern and robust perspective. Prof. Thapar’s own lack of the required linguistic skills forces her to ignore the non-translated texts. Instead, she is known to rely on the available outdated translations of ancient Indian texts and inscriptions – a fact noted by many friendly scholars.[5]

For non-translated texts, she tends to rely on old ‘Indices’ such as the Vedic Index from 1912. These indices and concordances are quite outdated and considered unsatisfactory by scholars doing state of the art research. In fact, a recent review[6] of one of her writings (‘From Lineage to State’ to be specific) alludes that her ‘analyses’ are akin to ‘theoricising in empirical vacuity’, precisely because of her non-familiarity with the primary literary sources from ancient India.

Her own lack of familiarity with these sources is compounded by her total disdain for the utility of such studies. A recent review of her writings quotes her as saying – “there is nothing to be learnt from the ancient literature of India that has not already been learned'.[7] I wonder if a scholar with such an attitude, coupled with incompetence in the required area can do serious research on historical consciousness in ancient India. Non-translated and/or non-published texts, inscriptions and other literary records from ancient India are typically not referenced in her writings even though she can easily access them from Indian libraries and manuscript collections.

3. Lack of skills in Paleography, Epigraphy and Related Fields: Inscriptions from ancient India are encountered in a myriad scripts. Mrs. Thapar cannot read more than 1 or 2 of these scripts. There do exist sources such as Epigraphia Indica, which give the text of these inscriptions. However, it is well known that the volumes are not updated regularly. Moreover, serious scholars often prefer to visit the sites of these and examine the evidence afresh.[8] Her critics have shown that Prof. Thapar has actually managed to distort even the evidence available from the Epigraphia Indica.[9]

Many Indian texts are still in manuscript – there are an estimated four million manuscripts in Indian libraries. These texts are often written in scripts that are no longer used. Prof. Thapar cannot read these manuscripts, and especially where the texts have not been published/translated yet, this is a serious lacuna. It may be noted that Prof. Thapar has not edited a single Indic text directly from manuscripts.

4. Incompetence in Archaeology: Prof. Thapar participated in two small archaeological excavations about 35 years ago, but thereafter, she has not benefited from the immense amounts of archaeological data being unearthed by professionals in India year after year, especially in recent years. In fact, she and a few other fellow Marxist historians have been at constant loggerheads with the archaeological survey of India for almost a decade now, because newly emerging data tends to be at variance with Marxist paradigms of Indian history. Recently, she, along with a few other Marxist historians even advocated a total moratorium on archaeological excavations in India for the next couple of years because the Indian archaeology establishment is allegedly ‘saffronized’[10] and their work can boost sectarian tensions. In fact, it is these same set of historians who have thoroughly ‘communalized’ (the use of this word in Indian English approximates the meaning ‘enhance sectarianism’)! Needless to say, such an attitude is not conducive to enhancing our understanding of ancient India.

One could argue that the craft of a historian goes beyond the above four skills, and also consists in interpreting all these primary data. However, a lack of skills required to collect the primary data can never be substituted by finesse in interpretations. What is the use of parading ones skills in armchair twisting of fashionable socio-anthropological theories[11] if one is incapable of generating, collecting and comprehending primary data? Scholarly differences of opinion are to be expected in a field like history, especially when it pertains to ancient India. However, what cannot be disputed is that a competency in the above-mentioned fields is an absolute requirement for a historian of ancient India.

It may be noted that Prof. Thapar’s publications are all secondary interpretations of selective and inadequate primary data. Her personal contribution in generating primary data of use to historians is practically nil.

Her disdain for traditional scholars of India, for archaeologists in India, and for the utility of learning Sanskrit and other classical languages and so on reflect an attitude which is not very suitable for a candidate aspiring to occupy the Kluge Chair.

B. POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS OF Prof. THAPAR - History as Political Propaganda:

The interpretations that Prof. Thapar gives to whatever primary data that can be handled by her, depends a lot on her own world view, and her resulting paradigms with regard to ancient India. This is where my second set of objections lies.

Prof. Thapar is a Marxist historian, and is acknowledged as such even by scholars of Marxism outside India.[12] Consequently, she has a very reductionist/narrow view of India’s past. For instance, she tends to exclude or diminish the importance of non-materialistic aspects of our culture and civilization. But more than that, she has a very negative opinion of the Hindu religious beliefs and spirituality. Her disdain for the intellectual and spiritual contributions of ancient India is reflected in her vehement public opposition to the teaching of Yoga in Indian schools.[13]

A subtle hate-mongering against Hindus and Hinduism seems to be an underlying theme in her writings. Even the school textbooks (I read them as a Grade VI student because they were required reading, mandated by the State) are not free from this bias.[14] The bias is manifested in many ways, to the extent that other scholars have alleged that Prof. Thapar has distorted primary historical evidence to suit political expediency. For instance, it is alleged that she has white-washed history when it comes to the rule of Muslim rulers in stamping out expressions of indigenous religious beliefs of Indians.[15] While one can certainly appreciate her social concerns that cause her to do all this, a professional historian is expected to draw a line before historiography becomes fiction dictated by ephemeral political ideologies. But anyone who has drawn attention to these deficiencies is immediately abused as a Brahminist and what not, by her and her supporters.

‘Nationalism’ is a dirty word for Indian Marxism, and anything that could inspire Indians to feel pride in their culture is deprecated. Consistent with Indian Marxist ideology, she has tended to promote the antiquated colonial-missionary-racist paradigm of ancient India, even though she professes to do just the opposite. Scholars have noticed how her writings merely excerpt works from the colonial era peppered with politically correct jargon. Some scholars have even seen a strong parallel between her views and the Aryanist writings of the early 20th century.[16]

If the study of history in India is so thoroughly politicized these days, Mrs. Thapar must share a lot of the credit for the same. Born into aristocracy, she has been accused of leveraging her connections, and for promoting the hegemony of a small group of Marxist/Communist/Leftist scholars who have been thrusting the ‘official’ history of India on several generations since 1970’s.[17] For instance, her textbook for school children was mandatory reading for millions of students from 1966 to 2001! Consistent with the Indian Marxist political ideology, she has privileged one religion over the other. For instance, it suits Indian Marxists to glorify Islam, Christianity and Marxism and criticize Hinduism. Such tendencies are both clear and subtle in her writings. Her writings also tend to create an alarmist tendency amongst certain sections of Indian society, and give a boost to sectarianism, which ironically she derides.[18]

Prof. Thapar herself has been an advisor to the Leader of the Opposition Political Party if India, namely Mrs. Sonia Gandhi (President of the Congress Party), and is considered very close to her. She has repeatedly shared the dais with Communist leaders. Her alma mater is considered the Mecca of Indian Marxism, and leading lights of Communist terrorist movements of India and Nepal openly acknowledge their debt to that institute.[19] Prof. Thapar has frequently made pointed attacks, in her public writings and in her speeches, against certain political parties and their leaders, particularly those belonging to the present ruling coalition in New Delhi. She has doggedly refused to condemn the large scale doctoring of history textbooks by the Communist ruled state governments of India,[20] and has in fact sided with the ideologues of these political parties.

Worst yet, she has constantly associated herself with an Indian organization called SAHMAT, whose office has been located right within the New Delhi branch of the Communist Party of India (Marxist).[21] SAHMAT is well-known for its anti-Americanism, and is at the forefront of anti-US demonstrations periodically. Mrs. Thapar frequently uses their platforms for making attacks on certain Indian politicians, contributes to their publications and has her own pamphlets sponsored by them.

Prof. Thapar is most welcome to subscribe to a particular political or religions ideology. The problem arises when her scholarly work becomes merely a subterfuge for political propaganda. It is impossible, in the eyes of the average Indian, to separate ‘Thapar – the Historian’, from ‘Thapar- the Politician’.[22]

In recent years, there has been an upsurge in the interest in ancient Indian culture and religion amongst all sections of the Indian society. Newer technologies that have democratized education and dissemination of knowledge, have promoted this trend. Prof. Thapar has, however, expressed negative views on these trends quite often. In a publication ten years ago, she notes with disdain that Indian scholars in the west use ‘the computer’ to facilitate their research. In a recent publication, she wonders if there should be state control on the Internet and media in India.[23] And in interviews, she has lamented often that the ‘barrier to entry’ for professional historiography has gotten lowered in recent years. Such an elitist mindset for a scholar wedded to Marxist historiography is somewhat paradoxical, and disturbing to me.

C. PERCEPTIONS OF THE INDIAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY

Prof. Thapar’s writings have also unfairly tarnished the illustrious Indian community in the United States. She has suggested often, without much provocation, that members of the community promote fundamentalism in India, and that they fund cranks and support fringe scholars rather than promote genuine scholarship.

All this perhaps explains why the on-line petition[24] protesting her appointment has drawn such a massive response. In a matter of 4 days, the petition gathered 1400+ signatures. It would be reasonable to assume that most of the supporters of this petition are from the US, given the low depth of penetration of the Internet in India. Some of the recurring themes in the protest notes of the signatories of the petition are: ‘She is anti-Hindu’, ‘She is anti-India’, ‘her historiography is flawed’, ‘She is a Communist’, ‘She would be a strain in US Tax $’, ‘She represents colonial historiography’, ‘She is a CIA plant to ensure Western hegemony over India’, ‘She has promoted various forms of terrorism in India (directly or indirectly)’, ‘She is anti-USA’. Clearly, some of the above allegations are outlandish, to say the least. For instance, I am aware that the Kluge Chair has been endowed with private funds, and so her employment would not draw my tax dollars. Nevertheless, the extreme display of emotions by many of the protestors is disturbing, even to me, who would have preferred a totally academic mode of objecting to her appointment. I would have hoped that the Library Of Congress had appointed a less controversial, and more accomplished scholar to the Kluge Chair.

As a response to this petition, Marxist and Communist groups immediately swung into action, and must have faxed you letters in support of Prof. Thapar’s appointment. That merely vindicates my assessment of her as a largely ‘political’ scholar. I hope the Library Of Congress does not seek to promote particular Indian political parties and ideologies by appointing a person like her. The petitioners are being labeled as ‘Right Wing Hindus’ and what not – a total mockery of our Constitutional Right of Freedom of Speech. Unfortunately, some well-meaning but ill-informed American academicians, swayed by their commitment to ‘Academic Freedom’ have also chimed in.

As is the case with immigrants from all the countries of the South, there is an undercurrent of opinion in the Indian community that the US tends to plant its “stooges” on Third World countries to further its own interests. I believe that Prof. Thapar’s appointment to the Kluge Chair will precisely promote such perceptions, at least in a large section of the Indian American community. Given Prof. Thapar’s frequent political activities, Indian Americans might even feel that the Library of Congress is trying to promote particular political parties in India at the cost of others by appointing her to the Kluge Chair.

Since Prof. Thapar and some of her colleagues in India are well known to have been thrust from the top by Left and Left-of-Center governments, her appointment to a prestigious chair in the United States is bound to provoke some amusement, if not outright derision.

One cannot also overlook the constant charge of the people of Third World Countries that the West patronizes the new ‘informers’ from the developing nations to promote their own interests. Prof. Thapar’s appointment to the Kluge Chair is again being perceived in the same manner by the petitioners, as I have elaborated above.